Medical Marijuana

A Yale associate professor of psychiatry is giving American veterans with intractable post traumatic stress disorder the main active ingredient in marijuana as part of search for a better PTSD cure.

Former chief resident in neuropsychiatry at the University of Massachusetts School of Medicine R. Andrew Sewell said PTSD and other anxiety disorders might hinge on a defect in brain cells that the marijuana molecule, “THC”, can help alleviate.

About 7.7 million Americans suffer from PTSD, and symptoms can include flashbacks, agitation, and anxiety triggered by a trauma-related thought, word, or object. Ultimately, THC could be combined with therapy to cure PTSD, Sewell said. He presented his ongoing study in Oakland this April at the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) conference. I’ve reported on it this week for the East Bay Express.

In addition to being part of a potential cure, marijuana (aka cannabis) is already being used for PTSD symptom management by thousands of veterans, said MAPS scientist Dr. Sue Sisley.

Sewell said, “Veterans use cannabis for two reasons, one it makes them less irritable, which is really socially destructive and also it helps them sleep. Cannabis is excellent for sleep, it is much better than alcohol.”

The court unanimously overturned an appeals court decision in the case of a Grand Traverse County man, Rodney Koon. He was stopped in 2010 for speeding — going nearly 30 mph over the limit.

Koon admitted having smoked medical marijuana earlier, and a blood test revealed the drug in his system.

It's illegal for Michigan drivers to consume marijuana. But the state high court said medical marijuana users have some protection. The court says police must show that a driver actually was "under the influence" of marijuana for a charge to stick.

Michigan voters approved medical use of marijuana in 2008.

The medical marijuana law "shields registered patients from prosecution for the internal possession of marijuana," the judges said.

At the same time, the law prohibits driving "while under the influence of marijuana." But it fails to specify what level of marijuana in the body constitutes being "under the influence," the opinion said.

The court suggested lawmakers consider setting a marijuana limit, similar to a blood alcohol level.

A bill approved by the California state senate on Monday would further restrict the state’s medical marijuana industry by requiring the end of all for-profit sales of the drug to licensed patients and caregivers.

The proposed law would go further than the state attorney general’s non-binding guidelines issued in 2008, making the not-for-profit collective model mandatory for dispensaries. Provisions in S.B. 439 would also place even greater records-keeping requirements on dispensary owners, who would still be entitled to reasonable compensation for their time and efforts. In theory, that should allow tax enforcers to peer more closely at dispensary finances to ensure shady businesses are not taking profits while reporting none.

“Everybody benefits from tighter regulations,” Chris Lindsey, legislative analyst for the Marijuana Policy Project, told Raw Story. “Where you run into problems is when you have a law that can be interpreted several different ways, which means that people trying to comply with the law don’t know where they stand.”

Most of you want to limit the number of marijuana dispensaries in town to 135 or less. So says a USC Sol Price School of Public Policy/Los Angeles Times poll of 500 likely voters conducted last week and released over the weekend.

That means that you're probably favoring the City Hall-sponsored Measure D, which would do just that and shut down as many as 9 out of 10 pot shops in town. The poll, however, is flawed:

It asks which statement voters agree with, putting a "cap" on the number of dispensaries or "no limits" on pot shops.

That's not really how it's going to work on the ballot. Measure D would indeed impose a cap; it would also shut down most shops in town. Measure F, its main competition, does impose regulations, including an increase in city tax, background checks for operators, business hours and maintaining distances from schools.

As its backers would argue, that's not "no limits;" They also say shops would be shut down under the ordinance, just not as many as would under D.